On 10/3/07, Orlando Andico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So enlighten me. What are the big boys capable of? How does oracle do > > it? A custom network stack? custom machines? non volatile transaction > > memory? election algorithms? > > Please see above. > > Some of the other offerings in the market offer true zero-hands > failover and true application-transparent failover. And yes, some of > them use a custom network stack and custom election algorithms. As I'm > just a lowly consultant, I don't have access to the details of the > implementations. One of the downsides of closed-source. > > You'd be amazed at how far and how much closed-source can do. There's > nothing that I know of like it in the Free Software world. > >
Ok one of the things i know is that the big boys engineers are actually fighting the os they are running in. windows specifically. the native network stack and disk cache sucks. so they used a custom disk cache which happens to be similar but not compatible to the linux buffer cache and a network stack thats very highly optimised for the typical use case for the application. those are the main reason for the high performance plus the super dooper optimizations from closed source compilers. the election algorithms are all well known algorithms that you can find in any thesis or computer scence textbook. the commit protocols are also well documented for all the known databases. same goes for the failover algorithms. so the differentiator for the big boys are the implementation and nda covered deals they have with the os vendor. what else? none. llvm will fix the optimization problem and the os support is already solved in linux. so there. thats why im so gung ho over the closed source boys. -- Lay low and nourish in obscurity _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
